United States v. George
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
477 F.2d 508 (1973)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Peter Yonan (defendant) was a cabinet buyer for Zenith. Yonan was responsible for negotiating with cabinet vendors, arranging for delivery, and monitoring the quality of the cabinets. Zenith had a conflict-of-interest policy that prohibited purchasing-department employees from receiving gratuities from suppliers. Yonan signed the policy, and suppliers were notified of the policy. Irving Greensphan (defendant), who was a longtime friend of Yonan, was a cabinet supplier. To ensure that Greensphan’s company received and kept Zenith’s business, Greensphan agreed to pay Yonan kickbacks for each cabinet Zenith purchased from Greensphan’s company. The kickbacks were paid through fictitious commission invoices from a woodworking company owned by Andrew George (defendant), a friend of both Yonan and Greensphan. Greensphan’s company paid George’s company commissions, and George’s company kicked back one-third of the commissions to Yonan. Yonan, Greensphan, and George were indicted for mail fraud and convicted after trial. On appeal, they argued that there was no fraud because the kickbacks did not come from Zenith, Greensphan did not receive any preferential treatment, and Zenith was satisfied with the quality and prices of the cabinets purchased from Greensphan.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cumming, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
